Writing Prompt: This morning, we will focus on the ways in which scholarly conversations about teaching writing as a process have changed over the course of thirty years.
Based on the essays you have read so far, are there any process-oriented issues or concerns that continue to be important in post-process theories? What perspectives on writing seem to have fallen out of favor in post-process theory? In other words, how has the conversation changed over time? What similarities and differences do you notice between the process theories and research of the 1970’s and the more recent post-process theories?
In your view, is there really such a big difference between process and post-process theories? Or have post-process theories “created their own rhetorical narrative of process as content-based, thus casting process as the scapegoat” (Breuch 109)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Post-process seams to create Pandora's box of issues because it claims that the big "T" of Process Theory is not a effective in writing as it has been made to be. I think that article seems to repeat its point because people in general don't change opinions or listen as carefully if they do no hear a voice of opposition multiple times. It also acknowledges that people don't really study post-process and admit the process ends at the completion of product (meaning that revision is accounted in the original process).
Where post-process differes is that it is looking for an extention of discourse and thus leading to answers to more research. Thus bringing the process full circle. It agrees that grammar is a nessicary tool to be taught, but agrees with research that it in itself is not an effective means in helping to develop a more cognative and consise writer.
I agree that the process ends in the classroom when the product is due. I think that post-process supports would like to see an addition to the process with more follow through as to if the meaning of the paper/product is what they meant it to be and how could they continue the thoughts brought up in many different directions.
I think Sommers brought up a valid point that Breusch's post-process theory would relate to. Sommers had critiqued strict process in stunting creativity, for example, with introduction and thesis creation. Sommers said that when students are taught to create introductions and a thesis before writing the rest of the paper, discovery and the possibility of change are diminished. I think this relates well to the post-process theory as an argument of how process depletes the discovery and possibility of writing.
In my view from what little I fully understood from the post-process article, there is a difference between the two theories because post-process criticizes everything that process pedagogy stands for. However, to play the believing game, I think Breuch was trying to say at the end of the article that post-process can be taught, I'm just not too certain how.
I also think there is a connection from Sommers' article of experienced writers and their revision. Sommers says that no product is ever really complete, and writing is a never-ending process. I think this fits into post-process theory because writing is to be taught not as a "thing" but as a discovery process. Kent describes the shift from writing as a thing to discovery, by the following: "writing is public, writing is interpretive; and writing is situated (110). Writing in public means that we are writing to an audience and therefore you must consider your audience when writing. Next, what we know is shaped by interpretations so writing becomes an activity that requires an "understanding of context, interaction with others, and our attempts to communicate messages" (115). Finally, writing is led by the situation, not by the rules of process. I think Sommers take on experienced writers' process follows what Kent is saying here, specifically because Sommers said that experienced writers considered their audience in their writing and revision.
I think there are several process-oriented issues that are important in post-process theory. The theory suggests that writing cannot be taught which is something I disagree with. If writing cannot be taught, then why and how do writers become more skilled? (That is to assume that there are ways of judging skill in writing). In my view, I felt like post-process theories have made a few valid points, but overall ignore very valid arguments for the teaching of the process of writing. I think that once you understand how the process works, you can break away from the process and figure out what writing strategy works for you, but until then, the teaching of process does help students to learn how to become better writers. That said, I do agree that writing is public, and the strategies for writing can be changed based on the needs of the teacher's classroom. In that manner, I think post-process theory does help teachers to think with less restrictions and become more open about teaching, but the "face-value" of the theory is flawed. I think that if the author had structured her argument better and really gone through the PROCESS of writing, I might have been even more inclined to see her point of view. The very fact that the argument seemed all over the place leads me to believe that this theory is clearly flawed.
Over time, instruction of writing has slowly begun leaning towards letting students find their own preference in theory than just teaching one “right” way. Murray first brought up this point is saying that students should learn to write using their own writing as examples to learn from and that teachers need to stop talking about writing and just let the students begin writing.
Sommers then addressed the differences between student and experienced writers in the rewriting process. She suggests that when writers move their focus away from writing correctly according to a process or mechanics, they can communicate their ideas to their audience better, which is the whole point of writing. Breuch, now, wants to do away with the teaching of a process completely.
While I see her point in that expressing a correct way of writing will limit a student’s ability, I don’t think structure should be scraped all together. Because every student is different, I think there is a balance that can be achieved in the classroom where structure and process is taught so students have a starting point, but exploration of preference is encouraged. This would teach students the basic techniques of writing while allowing them to develop their writing in their own unique way.
I don’t see a big difference in process and post-process theories. The theories seem to all stay on the same course of encouraging less teaching of a concrete way of writing and post-process theories have just traveled to the extreme side of that view.
Crystal
Luke
Maria
We think that both post process and post-process theories are concerned with what limits students writing, but they come up with different answers for this question. Process theory felt that limitations on students were created by too much focus on grammar and other smaller details in the writing and rewriting stages. Post-process seem to criticize the entire idea of process.
Breuch says that teaching styles for writing are ineffective. She suggested that one on one writing centers or tutoring sessions might be a more effective way of introducing the concept of writing. The students would be more engaged in writing if the teacher student relationship is an equal partnership.
We found that post process and process theories have many similarities. Process theorists have also claimed that the process of writing does not end when you have a product in your hands, but rather that writing is an ongoing activity. We also have found that having mastering the rules of grammar does not guarantee a well written paper under the guidelines of process or post-process theories.
Process theorists think that writing can be taught whereas; post-process theorists do not think that writing cannot be taught simply be taught through the process theory alone.
There is a correlation between process and post-process theories because I believe that they parallel one another. There are many debates and articles on post process theories and such but I think that in order to get to the writing process and to become a good writer there is definitely a writing process that one has to go through. I think someone in the class said, to have your own “voice” and to distinguish yourself from other writers there is a process a person goes through to come to this, I believe that is true. To become a good writer and to understand the process of writing is to go through a series of processes. In my own experience as a writer this has worked for me. Every student has their own writing style and process they go through to get to a finished product that they are satisfied with, with that being said process and post-process theories go hand in hand. There is no one way to teach writing there is a sequence of ways. These ways help the individual decide what works for them. Breuch, statement on writing cannot be taught, is off-putting because if writing cannot be taught then what do teachers do everyday in a writing class? How can teachers relay this message in one way? They really can’t because everyone has their own style, and it is not something that a person just has it is a process that one learns and then utilizes that method in their own writing.
After today's discussion, I don't think it's a good idea to completely throw the whole concept of "writing is a process" out the window. Personally, I need to pre-write before I start a draft of my paper, otherwise I am all over the place, disorganized, and easily become confused as to what I am trying to say. I do not think that doing this "limits" my writing, because at this point I do not even have my thesis yet, I am just getting all of my ideas on paper and attempting to organize them. I think it is important to have a knowledge of grammar in order to make writing more cohesive and understandable, but at the same time as Sommers says, this should not be the entire focus of the writing "process." Therefore, I think Murray has a good idea of waiting more towards the end of writing a paper, the rewriting stage, to really look at things like that. As many people in the class have said, you do not want to focus on grammar so much that it takes away from your ideas. I now think there may be many more great writers out there with wonderful ideas, but because they are so caught up on the nitty gritty details of writing, it is hard for them to express themselves, let alone feel confident about what they are saying. I think it was Kent that said writing can not be "taught:" you can teach grammar, structure, organization, etc., but you can not teach the actual talent. I thought that was really interesting, and it reminded me of playing sports: for example you can persistently show someone how to shoot a basketball, explain and show them the form they shoud use, the physics of what they are doing, pretty everything they need to know, but it does not mean that they will ever be able to do it, let alone effectively. That goes into a whole other issue, though, of whether something such as basketball, or in this case writing, can be learned or if it really is an innate, "God-given" talent. I thought the comment in class about reading a lot as a child helping later on in life with regards to writing was interesting, and I think there may be a lot of truth to that. At the same time, though, I began to wonder if reading too much meant that in the end you would just be imitating other authors and their styles, and not being able to find your own. I think everything we encounter will shape us to some effect, but maybe only reading as a child, and not doing any writing, may be somewhat ineffective when it comes to writing later on in life because you do not have your own voice, you have constantly been looking at someone elses.
After today's discussion, I tend to agree with the idea that post-process theory suggests a return to the teaching of pre-writing. While it is still unclear, in my view, what aspects of process post-process argues against, it does seem clear at least that post-process theorists want the teaching of composition to involve more listening and conversation between students and teachers. I think both process and post-process theorists agree a focus on grammar is not the most effective method for teaching writing. Post-process theorists, however, probably don't quite realize this agreement. Sondra Perl indicates that the process theory implies teachers may need to “identify which characteristic components of each student’s process facilitate writing and which inhibit it before further teaching takes place.” The similarities between process and post-process are evident in the implications Breuch says post-process brings to writing. I think process theorists would agree that writing is public and interpretive. For example, Sommers says that writers “need to rely on their own internalized sense of good writing and to see their writing in their ‘own’ eyes.” This suggests writing as interpretive.
Well how does one teach the writing process? Does one use the three writing steps most commonly associated with teaching, pre-writing, writing and revision, or does the teacher use dialogue with the student to get the wanted outcome. There are many compelling cases: some argue that there is a scientific formula to writing, whereas some say that writing can not be taught, but then some argue that the teacher should get out to of the way and the student will learn by doing. Some stressed the pre-writing, but some said that the revision is the most important process, and then there is Breuch. Breuch does not believe that any “process” is the correct way to teach her students how to write, she believes in listening, discussing ideas and trying to meet her students pedagogical needs what a weirdo. There was mention of a scapegoat. Each theory needs some other theory to blame for its problems or for an example of why it does not work. But here’s an idea, maybe all the theories have some real useful truth in them. I would like to argue the “little from column “A”, and a little from column “B”” theory. Here I will attempt to argue that it might be useful to pinch some ideas from each theory and try them out in your classroom. So in a way we can agree with Breuch, who believes in listening to her students and trying to meet her student’s pedagogical needs. If we want to do that, it makes sense to use some of the prewite, write and rewrite, but also to focus on different parts of the process or even let your students run wild and write what they want. I think its up to the teacher to decide which works best.
Istructors have abandoned many of the practices that used to be common in classrooms. The five paragraph model, so emphasized at the junior high level, is criticized by many educators at the secondary level. Instructors want more sophisticated work than the five paragraph method seems to allow. Instead, they are teaching various templates: narrative, compare and constast, ect. Worse yet, secondary education teachers assume their students are familiar with these models and briefly skim the template before assigning a particular writing project. In many schools, students are segregated in regards to writing. General education courses in English remain a requirement but at one particular high school I am thinking of, students are assigned to a type of writing that they will be taught. College bound students are exposed to a wider variety of writing process theories. Such students study literature and formulate writing projects based on the reading; others are limited to the teaching of writing as it applies to business or technical writing.
Another way that I have noticed the instruction of writing shifting is that it is gearing away from the traditional emphasis on final product. In my daughter's second grade class, the students routinely write stories in a journal which is handed into the teacher at the end of every week. In part this process is meant to emphasize capitalizion, grammar, and sentence structure as the teacher corrects mistakes in these areas accordingly. However, she does encourage the creative side of writing in this assignment by statements s such as, "How does this end?" or "Tell me more about this." This manner of teaching emphasizes the creative aspects of writing and simple topics such as grammar. Although this assignment takes places in a second grade classroom, I believe the teacher has the most effective approach in regards to writing.
A carefully crafted balance between structure and invention is a method that may be used by any instuctor at any level. To further demonstrate how truly effective this process is, students edit and continue to add to the journals throughout the year. The project is never truly finished until the end of the year and even after it is finished, the students have a final product which to refer to. Since most believe that the reading process is part of writing, the usefulness of this assignment continues to influence the student.
Another way in which the conversation of how to teach writing has shifted is that many no longer consider one final product as an adequate means to judge a student's writing. Many instructors use a portfolio method, in which students gather several writing projects for the review of the instructor over a term of a semester. This prevents an overview of the students work. Problems within one genre may not present themselves in another. For instances, writers who are proficient in the creative aspects of writing may have trouble forumuating a research paper. The variety of assignments helps the instructor assess student strengths and weaknesses which allows for more specific occassion for instruction regarding those strengths and weaknesses.
I think that much has changed since the 1970’s in terms of research. Over the course of this class I have heard, many times, that composition is an ever – changing field. I think this, alone, would make for a very different definition of “composition” in today’s academic world. Breuch’s article argues that writing cannot be taught using processes like prewriting, writing, and rewriting. She believes these processes to be too general and limiting to the writer. According to her, the same processes cannot be used on every student, because they all learn differently.
I personally feel that these processes help me in my writing. I also feel it’s a good thing that they’re pretty general, this means that they won’t stifle my creativity.
After reading Perl and Sommers, we learned that process theory states that "unskilled writers" spend too much time with the "knots and tangles" of the writing process. In other words, these writers let obstacles like grammar and punctuation keep them from focusing on the form and the overall effectiveness of the work. This prevents them from advancing to the stage of experienced writers, who look at the writing process as a whole and not in parts.
In response, post-process theory disregards the entire concept of process theory. Post-process theory states that writing cannot be taught. Bruech feels that the act of coding writing behavior is a waste of time because it is not a concrete process. In her opinion, the concept of looking at writing as a process is an unobtainable ideal.
However, Bruech does believe that post-process theory is beneficial because it causes teachers to rethink their ideas and to pay better attention to students' individual needs. Of course, this is something that teachers can very well do without the prompting of post-process theory.
After considering Bruech's view that writing cannot be taught, I started to question how I learned to write. During my childhood, I was an avid reader. By "avid" I mean that I spent an embarrassing amount of time reading everything and anything. I think that reading helped me to subconsciously learn about grammar, spelling, and punctuation. As a result, I did not struggle with many of the problems that "unskilled writers" experience. I did not have to spend time on the "knots and tangles" of the writing process, so I was able to proceed to critiquing the overall effectiveness of my writing. In this respect, I believe that reading is the best writing teacher because it helps to expedite the writing process.
Post a Comment